Running Head: TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Embracing Technology in Constructivist Learning Environments

Wendi Straub
Boise State University

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Abstract
How modern information is created, accessed, interpreted, and shared demands a reimagining of the education model; a new scheme focused on learner participation, social
interaction and creativity in authentic and relevant activities. This paper contends that these
needs will be met by constructivist learning environments enhanced by the appropriate
integration of technology. Through a constructivist lens, learners actively construct new
knowledge through individual and social experiences with the world rather than passively
accepting information from resources. New technologies can create a rich environment for
authentic, reflective, collaborative, and student-centered approaches learning that transcend the
barriers between school and daily life. Challenges to this model include institutional and
instructional barriers associated with student-centered learning environments and technology
implementation.

Keywords: constructivism, technology, social learning theory, web 2.0, student-centered learning

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Embracing Technology in Constructivist Learning Environments

The internet and its ubiquity have changed the learning paradigm. Individuals routinely
access and contribute information in various formats practically without limits, and engage in
social interactions that cross cultural and physical boundaries in and out of school. Web 2.0 tools
are having a profound impact on the way we learn and should have impact on the way we teach.
Ultimately our goal as educators is to prepare students to take their place in the modern world as
self-directed learners, content creators, and critical consumers in a global knowledge-building
community. One way we can contribute to the future success of our students is by creating
learning environments that reflect the complementary relationships between constructivism,
social learning theory, and educational technology. Meaningful learning is an active, intentional,
social, and reflective construction by the learner engaged in authentic experiences.
The integration of technology affords students and teachers the access to sustained
complex and communal learning communities while addressing authentic problems that can be
difficult or even impossible to construct through traditional means (Ghefaili, 2003; Herrington &
Kervin, 2007). With appropriate technologies and strategies, students can be engaged in learning
contextsthatareauthenticandsocial,withgreateropportunitiestodirecttheirownlearning.
Similarly,studentscanconstruct,sociallynegotiate,reflect,anddemonstratetheirknowledge
througheasilygenerated,edited,andsharedformats.
Challengestodevelopingtechnologyrichclassroomsbasedonconstructivistprinciples
primarilyreflectchangesnecessaryforstudentcenteredcollaborativelearningorincreased
technologyinanyschoolorclassroom.Entrenchedpracticesandpolicies,financialandphysical

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

constraintstoeffectivetechnologyimplementation,andthedynamicnatureoftechnologyall
playarole,butcanbemitigatedbycommittedandinnovativeeducatorswhoembraceauthentic
learningcommunitiesintheirownprofessionaldevelopment.
Discussion
Just as students struggle to transfer learning from one context to another, we struggle to
transcend the boundaries between philosophy, theory and practice. However, as educators, we are
charged with defining our own epistemology and educational philosophy in order to consistently
and coherently adapt theories to create effective learning environments. Although predominantly
concerned with the applied elements of pedagogy, skilled educators also consider the impact of
their own ideology on their practices and develop learning opportunities with respect to the
implications and assumptions of their philosophical and theoretical underpinnings (Ertmer &
Newby, 1993; Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).
Defining Constructivism
Constructivism has meanings and implications in philosophy, theory and practice which
are not homogeneous and may not even be harmonious (Gil-Perez et al., 2002; Karagiorgi &
Symeou, 2005; Phillips, 1995). Scholars have given considerable debate to the true meaning of
constructivism; whether it negates a real world, and whether it is a philosophy or learning
theory; all of which I hope to avoid. For the purposes of this discussion, constructivism is the
concept that individuals actively construct knowledge from engaging in social interactions and
relevant contextual experiences in the world (Jonassen, Cernusca, & Ionas, 2007). It is birthed
from the philosophical and ontological debate about reality - objectivism versus subjectivism,
with a firm footing in subjectivism (Phillips, 1995). While a stable natural world likely exists
independent of human comprehension, philosophical constructivism asserts that our ability to

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

perceive and conceive of the world is wholly dependent on human constructs and human biology
and is therefore subjective to a human lens. We assign meanings to our experiences based on our
abilities to sense, interpret and reconcile events with respect to our previous knowledge and
experiences (Ertmer & Newby, 1993).
Applied to learning theory, constructivism contends that learners actively construct new
knowledge upon the foundation of their prior learning through experiences with the world; they
do not simply acquire information from what they read or are told (Ertmer & Newby, 1993; GilPerez et al., 2002; Jonassen et al., 2007; Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Constructivism in
education developed in response to the mind-independent (objective) views of knowledge and
the passive transmission practices of behaviorism and cognitivism, and shifted the focus of
teaching from expert-led instruction and elicitation of content to student-centered exploration
and interpretation of ideas within an experiential context (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). The
instructional emphasis is on both the learners competencies and the interactions between the
learner and his/her environment. Reflection and metacognition become critical elements for
learners to reconcile the dissidence between prior conceptions and new exchanges of
information. Similarly, the role of the educator is shifted from authoritative presenter to guide or
facilitator of relevant experiences and the learners inferences as they move from neophyte to
amateur and potentially, expert.
Contributions from Social Learning Theories
Proponents of social learning built upon this constructivist foundation but further
accentuate the role of social interactions and community identity in a learners environment. Lev
Vygotsky detailed the social nature of learning and the critical importance of appropriate
collaborations during cognitive development (Hung, 2001). Lave and Wenger (1990) suggest that

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

all knowledge is socially construed and culturally validated through legitimate peripheral
practice within communities of common interests. Learners also develop their personal and
social identities through participation in knowledge-building communities as they assimilate
information, behaviors, and skills from other members. And according to Brown, Collins and
Duguid (1989), knowledge is the product of the activity, context and culture in which it is
developed such that learners derive said knowledge from collective expertise in a cognitive
apprenticeship.
In all cases, social constructivists advocate for appropriate scaffolding, coaching,
collaboration, and other social exchanges to create communities of practice (or learning) that
facilitate relevant and harmonious knowledge construction within the context of solving
authentic problems because meaning is interdependent with the common practices of its domain.
For example, collaboration on valid ill-structured problems emulates scientific thinking and
scientific processes and provides students with genuine opportunities to develop related aptitudes
and gain insight into the genius and flaws of science as a consensual human endeavor. Peer and
mentor interactions with cooperative feedback should both challenge and strengthen concepts for
both experts and novices within the learning community, and hopefully, illuminate potential
applications and future social implications. The National Research Council in its 2012
recommendations for science education support contextual authentic practices in the following
statement, the framework must take into account that practices of inquiry and the discourses by
which such ideas are developed and refined. At the same time, they cannot learn or show
competence in practices except in the context of specific content, (NRC, 2012, p. 218).
Education Technology and Constructivism: A Natural Relationship

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

With the expanded interest in learners prior competencies and social associations plus
authenticity in contextual learning situations, Web 2.0 educational technologies are a natural
complement to student-centered social constructivist learning environments, and may even be a
necessity. Web 2.0 technologies are characterized by their interactive nature; average individuals
are socially connected, and can generate and share content rather than passively consume the
content of specialists (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). These technologies play a pivotal
role by engaging students in immediate, responsive, expansive, and social resources that can be
explored and repurposed in novel and complex ways (Ghefaili, 2003; Herrington & Kervin,
2007). Consistent with constructivism, the U.S. Department of Educations 2010 National
Education Technology Plan (Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology) beseeches schools to provide engaging and empowering personalized learning
experiences for all learners and a model of learning powered by technology to confer 21st century
skills. To be effective, technology should be used in theoretically sound ways by students to
solve complex authentic problems in a way that it becomes a critical element in the constructive
learning process and the development learning communities (Herrington & Kervin, 2007).
Current technology affords students unprecedented access to a wealth of tools and
knowledge-building communities; expanding their resources for developing and demonstrating
their knowledge via multiple processes (text, graphics, sounds, video, and other media) in ways
that are easily updated, tracked, retrieved, shared, and stored for collaboration, reflection, and
assessment (Herrington & Kervin, 2007). Similarly, a vast array of formal and informal digital
experiences enhance opportunities for students to generate and participate in powerful learning
communities, expanding their network of peers, mentors and resources for developing
comprehension and depth of knowledge, plus individual scaffolding and feedback on learner-

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

generated content. Cloud-based technologies, in particular, enhance constructivist and

cooperative learning environments by facilitating the social construction of knowledge in a very
responsive time and setting. Rather than static contributions from students stacked in linear
fashion, socially constructed knowledge, facilitated through cloud technologies like Google docs
and Wikis, is shared and refined by multiple users in real time; yet retains a stable record of its
evolution that can be used for reflection and development of metacognitive skills (Denton,
2012). Newest technologies bestow unprecedented opportunities for students to connect with
one another, their instructor and other experts to collaborate and reflect on learning processes and
objectives in socially-mediated learning communities (Herrington & Kervin, 2007). Students can
engage in critically evaluating their own work and the work of others and promote innovative
ideas through dynamic products and public dialogues with a broad audience (Greenhow et al.,
2009).
Finally, for learners to transfer knowledge and skills from educational settings to other
situations, they must connect what they learn in school to what they experience outside of school
(Brown et al., 1989). Our students are arriving in our institutions with technology in their hands
and routine access to content in a variety of formats, preeminent instructors, experts working in
the field, and global databases. Educators must recognize that individuals are simultaneously
involved in multiple settings in which they create their own learning contexts within and across
permeable boundaries and capitalize on these learner experiences and expectations to create
engaging knowledge-building communities (Greenhow et al., 2009). Similarly, shrewd use of
technology can improve learner engagement and motivation; increasing student persistence and
participation by supporting the competencies and interests they bring to school and transcend the
barriers between school and modern life (Greenhow et al., 2009). We need our schools to help

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

students achieve digital literacy and empower them with the skills to teach and evaluate their
own knowledge and experiences. We cannot expect our students to be prepared for the new
world if we continue to teach with outdated tools. Web 2.0 helps us re-imagine our education
model as a modern, social, responsive, and authentic process with an active, learner-driven
approach to foster life-long learning (Greenhow et al., 2009). Technology is no longer a
facilitator of good pedagogy, but an integral element of preparing students for the real world.
Challenges to Implementation
Embracing technology in constructivist environments is not without challenges at both
institutional and instructional levels; andforthemostpart,hingesonthechangesnecessaryto
createauthenticstudentcenteredandsociallearningenvironmentsandaccesstoappropriate
technology(Ghefaili, 2003).Education is an institution with a long history of resistance to
change in both pedagogy and integration of modern tools. Decades of technology innovation
have left a rift between the process of teaching and learning in schools and ways of obtaining
knowledge in society at large, (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). Obstacles in formal education
include entrenched attitudes and practices, physical and financial constraints, the digital divide,
curricular discordance, and rapidly evolving tools.
Lack of agreement about what constitutes best practices and how technology plays a
role in education is the primary hindrance to creating technology rich constructivist learning
environments. Constructivismhasgainedmomentumasaviabletheoryonwhichtobase
learningmodelsinlast25yearsbecauseofitsfocusonlearningasanactiveprocessbythe
studentoverthepassivereceptionofknowledgefromaninstructor;butitisbynomeans
ubiquitous.Longstandingpracticesofdirectinstructionaboutabstractconceptsstillprevailin
manyclassrooms,plusmanyothereducatorsremainactivelyopposedtotechnology.

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Ifknowledgeisbasedonsocial,situational,andcontextualexperiencestobeinterpreted
andsociallyvalidatedratherthanabstract,discretepacketsofinformationtobeuploadedinto
studentsbrains;ashiftinpedagogy towards active, social student-centered learning
environmentsmustprecedetheincorporationoftechnology.Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich
(2010) indicate that while support and access for technology resources has steadily increased in
most schools, integration of technology into effective student learning has not necessarily
occurred. Technology is often used in lower level writing and research practices or to support
direct instruction rather than as a powerful and dynamic tool for student-centered learning. Using
newtechnologytoteachwithpassivemethodologywillnotcapitalizeonthelinkbetween
educationalneedsandtechnologicalcapabilities.Teachertrainingandprofessional development
should foster new teaching practices that effectively combine engaging student-centered learning
environments with new technology (Herring, 2004). Critical factors include: shifting the role of the
teacher from expert to facilitator, cultivating situated problem-based learning in a collaborative

environment, scaffolding and coaching students to effectively use learning strategies, and
embedding assessment in learning processes (Herring, 2004; Herrington & Kervin, 2007;
Strommen & Lincoln, 1992).
Obvious institutional barriers to extended technology are financial and physical limits in
schools (Strommen & Lincoln, 1992). Support for technology has risen in most schools, but
considerable variance occurs due to diverse budgets, geographical location, and building issues.
Schools with one-to-one technology have a significant advantage in creating the constructivist
environments described in this paper over those with high student-technology ratios. Budget
restrictions not only affect access to students, but also professional development options for
teachers. Teachers can only become proficient and confident users when offered multiple and

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

extended opportunities for training and application with time to develop, deploy, reflect and
adapt (Earle, 2002). Clearly, schools struggling fiscally are more likely to have overburdened
teachers and less time and money for quality professional development.
The digital divide is another challenge that must be addressed (Greenhow et al., 2009). If
technology is fully embraced in the classroom, students with access outside the classroom arrive
at school with an advantage over those that do not. Disadvantaged students may also fall further
behind as the other students transfer learning between home and school with greater ease.
Evidence points to significant benefits for those who become digital citizens due to our
increasing dependence on digital skills for basic access to jobs, education, financial aid,
economic opportunities, political information, public media, and social connections. Information
has always been a valuable commodity. Digital proficiency may make the difference between
those who succeed and participate in society and those who become further disenfranchised
(DiMaggio, Hargittai, Celeste, & Shafer, 2004). This represents both an argument for including
technology in the classroom as it may be the only valid option for some students to gain access,
as well as an obstacle to providing equitable education to all students. Schools have a
responsibility to ensure that all students have equal access to knowledge and educational
opportunities.
Teachers are also charged with meeting mandated curricular objectives, often with
ingrained assessments; which may be contrary to the goals of constructivist learning
environments. Authentic learning environments require the planning, implementation, and
reflections of teachers engaged in theoretically sound practices to ensure appropriate technology
experiences engage students in effective cognitive tasks within a learning community
(Herrington & Kervin, 2007). Instruction strategies must be responsive to the learners interests,

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

strengths, and weaknesses through appropriate assessment and differentiation with purposeful
coaching and scaffolding. Digital skills become essential if students are to critically navigate and
fully participate in the Web 2.0 environment for knowledge construction, social negotiation, and
reflection. Self-identified technological prowess has been positively and significantly correlated
with how actively a student immersed themselves in the constructivist learning community
(Harmon & Jones 2001). The burden for matching curricular edicts with authentic learning
opportunities that reflect student competencies and needs fall to the teacher, often with too little
time and too many students.
Finally, the rapid evolution of technology keeps schools out of date. The resources and
time needed to select, evaluate, train, and implement new technology delays modernization in
schools. In response, Herrington and Kervin (2007) and Greenhow et al. (2009) encourage
educators to establish and participate in local and digital communities of practice in a supportive
and meaningful context directly related to their daily work. Educators can become proficient in
Web 2.0 tools and cultivate online identities as part of their own professional development until
their praxis naturally integrates the power of technology.
Conclusion
Technology should be integrated into our education the way it is integrated into our lives.
It is not external to learning opportunities, but rather intertwined with knowledge creation,
consumption, and collaboration. Currently, students find themselves engrossed by a rich dynamic
modern world while too often confined to a static and didactic classroom(Strommen&Lincoln,
1992). One response embraces the complementary relationships between constructivism, social
learning and educational technologies to create technology-rich, authentic, contextual
collaborative learning communities that transcend the barriers between school and daily life.

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

While I dont believe that there is any single instructional approach that will engender all
learning for all people, I do consider that student-centered learning environments with
opportunities for active, collaborative, contextual, and reflective practices are the most beneficial
and do not necessarily preclude all other forms of instruction. Nearly all of the research
presented here emphasizes that the requisite changes in effective learning practices supersedes
the use of any particular technology, and to continue using technology as an additional form of
direct instruction in a teacher-centered environment diminishes learning potential. No longer
the delivery truck of information (Herring, 2004), appropriate applications of technology can
transform education settings into empowering constructive, student-led and socially-mediated
learning communities.
Challenges to integrating constructivism, social learning and technology exist in schools.
Obstacles occur at all levels state, district, school and classroom, and include established
attitudes, practices and policies; limited resources and time; anemic training; and constantly
changing technologies. Most hurdles will have to be addressed from the bottom up rather than
the top down. Teachers have to clarify their own theoretical foundations and develop cogent
instructional practices, pioneer transformative learning experiences in their classrooms, and
engage in digital learning communities to construct new reflective and socially-negotiated
knowledge in their own profession.

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

References
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242.
Denton, D. W. (2012). Enhancing instruction through constructivism, cooperative learning, and
cloud computing. TechTrends, 56(4), 34-41.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal
access to differentiated use. Social inequality, 355-400.
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and
challenges. Educational Technology-Saddle Brook then Englewood Cliffs NJ-, 42(1), 5-13.

Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing
critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Ghefaili, A. (2003). Cognitive apprenticeship, technology, and the contextualization of learning
environments. Journal of Educational Computing, Design & Online Learning, 4(Winter),
1-27.
Gil-Prez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., De Carvalho, A. M. P., Torregrosa, J. M.,
et al. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 11(6),
557-571.

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a
digital age web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational
Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.
Harmon, S. W., & Jones, M. G. (2001). An analysis of situated web-based instruction.
Educational Media International, 38(4), 271-280.
Herring, M. C. (2004). Development of constructivist-based distance learning environments: A
knowledge base for k-12 teachers. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4), 2318
242.
Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten
suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International,
44(3), 219-236.
Hung, D. (2001). Theories of learning and computer-mediated instructional technologies.
Educational Media International, 38(4), 281-287.
Jonassen, D., Cernusca, D., & Ionas, G. (2007). Constructivism and instructional design: The
emergence of the learning sciences and design research. Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology, 2, 45-52.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design:
Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 17-27.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on socially shared
cognition, 63, 82.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1990). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

TECHNOLOGY IN CONSTRUCTIVIST LEARNING

National Research Council. (2012) A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices,
crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational researcher, 24(7), 5-12.
Strommen, E. F., & Lincoln, B. (1992). Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom
learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), 466-476.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington D.C.